Did you really sit through the entirety of In the Name of the King? After seeing Jason Statham elbow drop an orc and whatever the hell Ray Liotta was wearing I was pretty much done with that. Nothing could top those moments.

I’ve only seen Battlefield Earth from that list, and kind of enjoyed it. I also recently saw The Time Traveler’s Wife, and a movie that bad despite having Rachel McAdams should, I believe, deserve honorable mention at least.

Gigli wasn’t ALL bad. I mean, it was better than Ultraviolet or The Wicker Man, neither of which are even on the list. And Dungeon Siege had Ron Perlman, and it’s a natural law that nothing can completely suck with Ron Perlman in it.

One of the two is Battlefield Earth, which should be shown in schools along with an explanation that this is the Scientologist equivalent of The Passion of the Christ. The other… I only watched for Eliza Dushku.

Worryingly, that narrows it down to a field of at least two. Even my residual teenage lust can’t convince me the lady doesn’t have awful taste in scripts.

Happily N’Ever After wasn’t bad. It wasn’t great, but by no means a stinker, either. It had some good moments in it.

Then again, a Top # of Anything List is designed solely to generate traffic, comments, and arguments, these days. Plus they’re easy to churn out on a deadline, which is I’m sure why so many websites do Top # of Anything Lists.

I would love to know the circumstances under which you saw the Uwe Boll films listed (Dungeon Siege and Bloodrayne). Did you lose a bet? Have a desire to test your mental mettle? Experience a momentary lapse in judgment?

I mean, it’s not like anyone decided to experience these movies with any illusion that they’d be enjoyable, unless you were marooned on a satellite with a few wisecracking robots.

You know, actually, Boll’s Postal was really funny. On purpose. Witness the fact it didn’t make the list, unlike his other works and most other video-game conversions. Speaking of those, how did DOA: Dead or Alive not make it on the list?

I feel heaps better about myself after reading this list, since I haven’t seen any of them it means I haven’t wasted the last decade as much as I could have.

highlyverbal, RE:

“These would all deserve italics in my book, because I can’t consider 2000 as part of this decade.”

1st, a decade doesn’t have to mean `the 90s’ or `the 80s’ or whatever as, while that’s it’s common usage, the word can be used to mean merely `10 consecutive years’ (i.e 06/14/1876 to 05/14/1886 is a decade) and the list clearly just says `the decade’.

But even if we’re applying the common usage the convention has been to bound a decade by name i.e. 1990-1991 so I can onyl assume your objection is based around the old `there was no year zero’ misconception. Since our whole calenda was made up years after `the fact’ anyway, speaking in a strick mathmatical sense any given two number lines can overlap so there is no porblem in considering 1 BC to ALSO be 0 AD and 1 AD to also be BC. This effectively removes the issue and is more inline with the general idea of what a whole number is (the end of a transition from the previous whole number, not the begining) so rather than thinking of the year 2000 being the 2000th year one can consider the year 2000 to being the incomplete 2001st year in the AD sequence.

I’ve seen 12 of these, and I would only but 4 of them on a bottom 100 list. Or at the very least, lower on the list. Because, how does kickin it old skool make the list and malibu’s most wanted doesn’t. and again, WHITEOUT?

As for the list itself, I only have two real issues with it. One is that Ultraviolet isn’t on there; the other is that, as usual, it’s the hundred worst mainstream American films of the decade. If you’re going to shamelessly generalize, hit the video store first.